Microsoft's "technical error" violated antitrust agreement for more than a year.

European regulators today fined Microsoft €561 million (or $732 million) for failing to offer Windows users a choice of Web browsers as the company had been required to do.

A previous antitrust agreement required Microsoft to present users a choice of Web browsers in addition to its own Internet Explorer, such as Firefox, Chrome, Opera, and Safari. Microsoft did so for most versions of Windows, but an apparent accident caused the browser ballot to be stripped out of Windows 7 when its first service pack was released.

Microsoft admitted to the mistake last year, attributing it to a "technical error." The browser ballot screen was missing on Windows 7 from May 2011 until July 2012, although users could still change their default browser in Windows settings. Microsoft confirmed the mistake and distributed a software fix after EU officials notified the company of reports that users weren't being offered the browser choice.

Today's fine is the first time EU regulators "have punished a company for neglecting to comply with the terms of an antitrust settlement, and it could signal their determination to enforce deals in other cases, including one involving Google, where such an agreement is under discussion," the New York Times said.

Microsoft reiterated today that it accepts responsibility for the violation. "We take full responsibility for the technical error that caused this problem and have apologized for it," Microsoft said. "We provided the Commission with a complete and candid assessment of the situation, and we have taken steps to strengthen our software development and other processes to help avoid this mistake—or anything similar—in the future."

The European Commission announcement of the fine said Microsoft's mistake meant 15 million European users of Windows did not see the browser choice screen.

"In 2009, we closed our investigation about a suspected abuse of dominant position by Microsoft due to the tying of Internet Explorer to Windows by accepting commitments offered by the company," Commission VP Joaquín Almunia said in the announcement. "Legally binding commitments reached in antitrust decisions play a very important role in our enforcement policy because they allow for rapid solutions to competition problems. Of course, such decisions require strict compliance. A failure to comply is a very serious infringement that must be sanctioned accordingly."

The agreement to provide the browser ballot stemmed from Microsoft's dominant position in the Web browser market and the influence it has over users' choice of browsers as the maker of the world's most widely used operating system. Internet Explorer today holds 56 percent of the worldwide desktop browser market share. Microsoft committed to making the browser choice screen available for five years, until December 2014. While admitting the mistake last year, Microsoft offered to extend the time it will offer the browser choice screen by 15 months. The EU announcement today did not say whether it will require Microsoft to do that, and Microsoft declined to comment on the proposed 15-month extension.

The EU described why it believes the choice screen is important and why the fine was necessary:

The choice screen was provided as of March 2010 to European Windows users who have Internet Explorer set as their default web browser. While it was implemented, the choice screen was very successful with users: for example, until November 2010, 84 million browsers were downloaded through it. When the failure to comply was detected and documented in July 2012, the Commission opened an investigation and before taking a decision notified to Microsoft its formal objections in October 2012.

This is the first time that the Commission has had to fine a company for non-compliance with a commitments decision. In the calculation of the fine the Commission took into account the gravity and duration of the infringement, the need to ensure a deterrent effect of the fine and, as a mitigating circumstance, the fact that Microsoft has cooperated with the Commission and provided information which helped the Commission to investigate the matter efficiently.

The EU could have fined Microsoft up to 10 percent of its "total turnover in the preceding business year." Microsoft's fiscal 2012 worldwide revenue was $73.72 billion and its operating income was $21.76 billion. Microsoft's cash reserves total $68 billion.

The Times noted that fines levied by the EU are usually much lower than the maximum allowed. "The largest fine ever levied by the European authorities in an antitrust case was €1.1 billion, or $1.4 billion, in 2009 against Intel for abusing its dominance in the computer chip market," the Times wrote. "Intel is still appealing that ruling."

Microsoft's public statements on the browser ballot error seem to indicate that it will not appeal.

Microsoft implemented the browser ballot screen on Windows 8 for EU users when the latest version of Windows was released last year. Windows RT, the version of Windows 8 for ARM-based tablets and desktops, is more tightly locked down. "Windows RT only allows third-party applications that run in the tightly restricted Metro environment. These restrictions preclude the implementation of high-performance Web browsers," we noted in a story last year. Windows RT is a direct competitor to the iPad, which also places restrictions on third-party browsers.

Microsoft won't be forced open up Windows RT. Last October, Almunia said, “We have looked at Windows RT and on the basis of our investigation so far, there are no grounds to pursue further investigation on this particular issue."

170 Reader Comments

There has to be a point where Microsoft says "**ck'em" and stops selling Windows OS in Europe. Sure they will loose some $$, but how much could it possibly hurt them compared to the fines. If the Europeans have so little else to do other than punish a company for selling software, would serve them right to have to import copies. HaHa!!

They should just build the cost of EU compliance into the products they sell in the EU. I get flamed for saying this, but why should the rest of the world pay? It's not like Bill and Steve are heading to the bank for this money - MS is funding it from revenue, and IMO it should be funded from EU revenue.

When the government mandated airbags in cars, prices went up to accommodate the cost of the airbags. In countries that didn't mandate them, presumably prices didn't change. I don't see any difference here - companies incur costs based on regulatory compliance, and they pass those costs on to customers.

They could. It would probably only increase costs a few pennies on the copy though. As a software company, Microsoft really doesn't operate on a cost of production model or else Windows would be practically free.

Opera was charging. That's about it. Netscape was pretty much free for anyone and everyone who used it ever since I first downloaded it in 1996. I guess because Opera's an European company it makes sense.

During the time period of this, browsers were just about ALL free. When this originally came out, anything worth using was free..

Way back in the "get off my lawn" days, Netscape was not free.

There were versions of Netscape for pretty much every viable operating system of the day, and Microsoft was worried (correctly) that web standards could offer an alternate platform to Windows that they didn't control.

It didn't matter what OS you were running Netscape on, the web looked the same everywhere.

To Microsoft, this was a threat, so they cut off Netscape's oxygen by offering a competing product free of charge. They also decided to poison the web standards with proprietary closed source Microsoft additions like ActiveX controls. This is now known as the Microsoft "embrace, extend, extinguish" strategy.

Today, we all know that Microsoft's fear was justified, and the fact that so much of today's user interactions happen on the cross platform web has made it much easier for people to change platforms.

Wrong. The damage may have been done - over a fucking decade ago. By the time this agreement was entered into, and this violation occurred, the EU was beating a dead horse ... that bell has already been rung.

That child was molested a decade ago and he's an adult now anyway. That bell has been rung. Why bother punishing the molester?

Wow, that's an impressive non sequitur. Clearly these are the same things such that they are comparable - being punished for molesting a child years ago and being punished for violating a competitiveness agreement for a market that hasn't existed for a decade.Oh wait, those aren't the same damn thing at all. Microsoft isn't being fined for killing the user browser market in the 90s, it is being fined for violating an agreement over the last 2 years that was foisted on it 4 years ago by the EU BECAUSE of that assault on the consumer browser market in the 90s even though there hasn't been a market for browsers to be competitive in since they have all been freeware since 2000, over a decade ago. What market is the EU protecting here?

Microsoft broke the law. The settlement agreement they entered into with the EU as a result of that criminal behavior required them to do certain things for a certain amount of time. They failed to comply with that agreement. Therefore they are being fined.

It is no different than someone getting thrown back in jail after violating parole conditions.

Opera was charging. That's about it. Netscape was pretty much free for anyone and everyone who used it ever since I first downloaded it in 1996. I guess because Opera's an European company it makes sense.

Opera is from Norway.

Don't worry, I won't insult you by lecturing you of the significance of that.

Microsoft broke the law. The settlement agreement they entered into with the EU as a result of that criminal behavior required them to do certain things for a certain amount of time. They failed to comply with that agreement. Therefore they are being fined.

Yes, now that we have agreed to the facts that literally no one disagrees with, let's get back to what I am actually complaining about

Microsoft broke the law. The settlement agreement they entered into with the EU as a result of that criminal behavior required them to do certain things for a certain amount of time. They failed to comply with that agreement. Therefore they are being fined.

Yes, now that we have agreed to the facts that literally no one disagrees with, let's get back to what I am actually complaining about

There's nothing to complain about. Everything that Microsoft is suffering is Microsoft's own fault. It stems directly from Microsoft's refusal to obey the law and then, when caught, refusing to even comply with the terms of their punishment.

OEMs who wanted to pre-load Navigator had to pay up, as did business users. Much like "free" antivirus programs today: the personal-use-only version was freeware, but if you wanted to use it in a business setting (or sell a computer with it) Netscape got your money.

So because MS fixed a lacking part of their OS it's somehow an issue. OEMs had no problem paying for Netscape when IE sucked and Netscape was unable to make their product better and worth paying for, so I guess they should be rewarded.

Microsoft stipulated that OEMs couldn't offer Netscape pre-installed if they wanted to get the full OEM discount on Windows. Yes, that is a fucking problem.

Quote:

Your analogy is a bit off. I'll fix it for you. Basically I got pulled over a year ago for going 70 in a 40, and in a plea with the judge I said I'd never drive above 40 in that zone again. Problem is, the speed limit was raised to 50 and I got pulled over a year later for going 50 in a 50.

You and Cartigan don't understand. Everybody else is trying to get it through your thick heads. I'll use smaller words.

MS was not being charged in 2009 for doing anything wrong in 2009. They were being charged in 2009 for doing wrong things in the 1990s and early 2000s. As part of the agreement to lesson the fines they had coming for those past violations, MS agreed to the browser ballot.

Hence all the comparisons to speeding tickets and child molestation that are only brought to justice after the fact. The crimes were committed before this case was brought forward, and well before MS's agreement. The EU ruled that MS violated the agreement and so they have to pay a fine for doing so.

Microsoft broke the law. The settlement agreement they entered into with the EU as a result of that criminal behavior required them to do certain things for a certain amount of time. They failed to comply with that agreement. Therefore they are being fined.

Yes, now that we have agreed to the facts that literally no one disagrees with, let's get back to what I am actually complaining about

There's nothing to complain about. Everything that Microsoft is suffering is Microsoft's own fault. It stems directly from Microsoft's refusal to obey the law and then, when caught, refusing to even comply with the terms of their punishment.

I'm complaining the terms were idiotic on their face and never should have been proposed or agreed to.Though it is pretty half-ass for Microsoft to FUBAR such a simple punishment.

Microsoft broke the law. The settlement agreement they entered into with the EU as a result of that criminal behavior required them to do certain things for a certain amount of time. They failed to comply with that agreement. Therefore they are being fined.

Yes, now that we have agreed to the facts that literally no one disagrees with, let's get back to what I am actually complaining about

The problem is that it doesn't really matter what your argument is though. It doesn't matter what the EU ordered Microsoft to do. The EU court handed out a punishment that Microsoft agreed to. They failed to live up to their obligation. They got bitch slapped for it. End of story. No, really!

Microsoft broke the law. The settlement agreement they entered into with the EU as a result of that criminal behavior required them to do certain things for a certain amount of time. They failed to comply with that agreement. Therefore they are being fined.

Yes, now that we have agreed to the facts that literally no one disagrees with, let's get back to what I am actually complaining about

The problem is that it doesn't really matter what your argument is though. It doesn't matter what the EU ordered Microsoft to do. The EU court handed out a punishment that Microsoft agreed to. They failed to live up to their obligation. They got bitch slapped for it. End of story. No, really!

Oh, I'm sorry. Let's go ahead and cut this entire comment thread because what is there to comment on? Nothing apparently. There is LITERALLY NOTHING to say in regards to this punishment or agreement. Thanks.

Microsoft broke the law. The settlement agreement they entered into with the EU as a result of that criminal behavior required them to do certain things for a certain amount of time. They failed to comply with that agreement. Therefore they are being fined.

Yes, now that we have agreed to the facts that literally no one disagrees with, let's get back to what I am actually complaining about

There's nothing to complain about. Everything that Microsoft is suffering is Microsoft's own fault. It stems directly from Microsoft's refusal to obey the law and then, when caught, refusing to even comply with the terms of their punishment.

So according to you the law is completely sacrosanct and should never be questioned. Good to know. The debate in here is not about whether Microsoft broke the law and went back on their word. Everyone agrees that they did. The debate is about whether this fine and the browser choice ruling in general is good policy. Will this ultimately hurt consumers by driving up costs? Will Microsoft look to new markets? There are consequences of government policy and these consequences are what needs to be debated.

It scares the shit out of me how many people in this thread have your attitude that because it's the law then it should never be questioned. We know Microsoft broke the law. That doesn't mean the law isn't bullshit.

I'm still of the opinion the entire thing is completely ridiculous to force this kind of thing. iOS and Android don't come with forced browser ballots when you first boot up those machines despite iOS' and Android's market dominance in the tablet and phone sectors respectively. It's insane to punish Microsoft for bundling a browser with their OS in this day and age. It's not as if they're preventing you from installing a new one or anything.

This whole thing tends to have kind of a surreal quality to it, in my eyes.

All this happened in the first place because Microsoft leveraged their monopoly in one market to destroy a competitor in another market, and that activity was deemed (correctly, in my opinion) to be illegal. So the oversight they're suffering right now is something they invited themselves.

But I also think the EU is being incredibly heavy-handed about it. I tend to think that a lot about the EU, though. (Your opinions may differ. But I think my opinion of the EU aligns most closely with Daniel Hannan's in "The New Road to Serfdom". And before people get upset, I'd say that for a man who so clearly disagrees with much of what's happening with the EU, he's a great deal more gentle -- not to say genteel -- in his disagreements about it than we're used to in the US. He's clearly a partisan, but he avoids playing the man instead of the ball, and that's a very refreshing change for this weary voter).

But MS should have known the EU would react this way. It's in-line with everything they've done before. Why didn't they fix this problem? Surely someone had pointed it out to them?

So why doesn't the same thing happen with Apple for gimping 3rd party browsers for example?

When will people understand the difference between a monopoly on the desktop and having a large market share?

The same time that you realize the difference between the two can be the result of completely legitimate business practices. Holding companies to different legal standards based on market share is asinine in my opinion.

Which is irrelevant. If you're speeding and see the blue lights start flashing behind you, you are still going to get a ticket regardless of whether you slow down after the fact. You can't challenge the ticket, show up in court to argue that you didn't speed on the way to the courthouse, and expect to get off.

Your analogy is a bit off. I'll fix it for you. Basically I got pulled over a year ago for going 70 in a 40, and in a plea with the judge I said I'd never drive above 40 in that zone again. Problem is, the speed limit was raised to 50 and I got pulled over a year later for going 50 in a 50.

No, you got a fine because for the last two years you failed to do your mandated appearances at Driver Education saying "Speeding is bad, mmkay?" to the kids.

This is nothing but an EU shakedown for money to temporarily finance their bankrupt socialist governments. I am sure Ballmer and company are really pissed off but they are just rolling over on this. It is the cost of doing business in the EU. Just consider it another bribe or graft needed to grease the wheels of commerce in the EU.

Ironically, Microsoft wasn't going to bundle any browser in the EU when the EU made a big stink of this. But the EU didn't like that! So then came the ballot box and MS being forced to offer multiple browsers. Apparently nobody at the EU ever thought to check to see if MS was maintaining compliance. What do all those enforcers do all day? Look at porn?

Recent developments make a mockery of this whole process. What applies to one should apply to all. Now we got Chrome OS and Firefox OS where the browser is the OS!

So why doesn't the same thing happen with Apple for gimping 3rd party browsers for example?

When will people understand the difference between a monopoly on the desktop and having a large market share?

The same time that you realize the difference between the two can be the result of completely legitimate business practices. Holding companies to different legal standards based on market share is asinine in my opinion.

When their product is so entrenched that pretty much everybody depends on it, I don't think it's unreasonable. But more to the point, Apple doesn't have the influence over other software companies in the mobile space that MS had in the desktop space in the 1990s. Not even close. Almost as soon as the iPhone came out, Android appeared and offered genuine competition. Market share was never as one-sided. The lack of a decent 3rd party browser on an iPhone was therefore never as big a deal. The fact that the iPhone was a closed app ecosystem with a walled-garden process for getting new apps is also a significant point of difference in contrast with the world of PCs in which MS operated, where anybody could write and sell software that didn't need MS's approval to run.

The discussion between Cartigan and Wheels is full of LOL. I'll just point out (again) that:

1. 10 years is not that uncommon for a large lawsuit to reach its conclusion.

2. After those 10 years Microsoft was found to have breached EU competition law. Microsoft ACCEPTED an agreement under which it would provide a ballot screen.

3. The agreement is a compensation for past breach. It's irrelevant that the damage was already done. It's even more irrelevant because Microsoft agreed to be bound by it. You can't sign a contract and a few years later go "yeah you know what? that contract I signed doesn't make much sense to me any more so let's just forget it, ok?".

BajaPaul wrote:

This is nothing but an EU shakedown for money to temporarily finance their bankrupt socialist governments.

AHAHAHAHAHAHA! *wipes tears* I was missing some conspiracy theory in this thread!

So according to you the law is completely sacrosanct and should never be questioned. Good to know. The debate in here is not about whether Microsoft broke the law and went back on their word. Everyone agrees that they did. The debate is about whether this fine and the browser choice ruling in general is good policy. Will this ultimately hurt consumers by driving up costs? Will Microsoft look to new markets? There are consequences of government policy and these consequences are what needs to be debated.

It scares the shit out of me how many people in this thread have your attitude that because it's the law then it should never be questioned. We know Microsoft broke the law. That doesn't mean the law isn't bullshit.

MS is paying because they broke the law. If MS raises prices to cover the costs of their illegal actions, then that is ok - It gives other vendors more room to negotiate. If MS does not look into new markets, then some other company will.

The law is not BS - MS abused it's monopoly position to the detriment of consumers. If they had not been brought up on charges, there would be no firefox, chrome or opera.

When their product is so entrenched that pretty much everybody depends on it, I don't think it's unreasonable. But more to the point, Apple doesn't have the influence over other software companies in the mobile space that MS had in the desktop space in the 1990s. Not even close.

What.

Quote:

Almost as soon as the iPhone came out, Android appeared and offered genuine competition.

After iPods pretty much killed the mp3 market. Oh, and after iPhones killed Blackberry.And after iTunes basically single handedly forced the music industry to accept mp3s.

Quote:

Market share was never as one-sided. The lack of a decent 3rd party browser on an iPhone was therefore never as big a deal.

Uh, what? That doesn't make any sense. Never mind your poor grasp of the concept of time, but how does having another nominal OS competitor mean it is ok to lock down software on your system without legal repercussion?

Quote:

The fact that the iPhone was a closed app ecosystem with a walled-garden process for getting new apps is also a significant point of difference in contrast with the world of PCs in which MS operated, where anybody could write and sell software that didn't need MS's approval to run.

Opera was charging. That's about it. Netscape was pretty much free for anyone and everyone who used it ever since I first downloaded it in 1996. I guess because Opera's an European company it makes sense.

Opera is from Norway.

Don't worry, I won't insult you by lecturing you of the significance of that.

Ahh whatever, it's still a neighbor. I never did so well in Social Studies

When their product is so entrenched that pretty much everybody depends on it, I don't think it's unreasonable. But more to the point, Apple doesn't have the influence over other software companies in the mobile space that MS had in the desktop space in the 1990s. Not even close.

What.

Quote:

Almost as soon as the iPhone came out, Android appeared and offered genuine competition.

After iPods pretty much killed the mp3 market. Oh, and after iPhones killed Blackberry.And after iTunes basically single handedly forced the music industry to accept mp3s.

Quote:

Market share was never as one-sided. The lack of a decent 3rd party browser on an iPhone was therefore never as big a deal.

Uh, what? That doesn't make any sense. Never mind your poor grasp of the concept of time, but how does having another nominal OS competitor mean it is ok to lock down software on your system without legal repercussion?

Quote:

The fact that the iPhone was a closed app ecosystem with a walled-garden process for getting new apps is also a significant point of difference in contrast with the world of PCs in which MS operated, where anybody could write and sell software that didn't need MS's approval to run.

Wargarrbl.

There is nothing illegal about being a monopoly..

If you don't know the difference between what Apple did and what MS did, then you should look into the history of MS anti-competitive behavior.

They used this power to force Internet Explorer down everyone's throats and then abandoned IE for a while

At first I thought the judgement seemed excessive. Then I recalled the horror of IE6 that Microsoft unleashed on the world in order to try to kill the internet as a viable software platform, and now I don't think the judgement isn't big enough.

When their product is so entrenched that pretty much everybody depends on it, I don't think it's unreasonable. But more to the point, Apple doesn't have the influence over other software companies in the mobile space that MS had in the desktop space in the 1990s. Not even close.

What.

Do I need to monosyllabic?

Quote:

Quote:

Almost as soon as the iPhone came out, Android appeared and offered genuine competition.

After iPods pretty much killed the mp3 market. Oh, and after iPhones killed Blackberry.

A) iPods have jack shit to do with this. And I'd argue that they did the opposite to the mp3 market. If you mean the portable mp3 player market, they didn't kill that either. Sandisk, Sony, etc. all offered decent and popular alternatives to Apple hardware at every price segment of the market. B) Re: Phones

Quote:

Quote:

Market share was never as one-sided. The lack of a decent 3rd party browser on an iPhone was therefore never as big a deal.

Uh, what? That doesn't make any sense. Never mind your poor grasp of the concept of time, but how does having another nominal OS competitor mean it is ok to lock down software on your system without legal repercussion?

Because people can choose another phone and don't have to worry about it turning out to be a BeBox. By the time RIM and Nokia smartphones were on the decline, Android phones were taking off. The dominance of iPhones over Android in terms of marketshare was short-lived and long-past, meanwhile iPhones were always competing with stronger numbers from RIM and Nokia until just recently. That's a totally different picture in comparison to the dominance of IE in the browser space and bundling with Windows on the desktop that helped it come about. Apple never really engaged in the kind of anti-competitive practices MS used to force other browsers out of the market, unless you consider the more recent development of using their design patents against Samsung. They couldn't have done it because they were never as dominant in mobile as Windows was on desktops and workstations.

I have no idea where you're getting your weird misconceptions about history, the law, or relevance to this conversation (mp3s... what?). Seriously, did you huff some spray cans before showing up in this thread, or something?

Quote:

Quote:

The fact that the iPhone was a closed app ecosystem with a walled-garden process for getting new apps is also a significant point of difference in contrast with the world of PCs in which MS operated, where anybody could write and sell software that didn't need MS's approval to run.

Wargarrbl.

Thanks for your articulate and well-informed rebuttal. I now have a lot to consider and re-evaluate.

If you don't know the difference between what Apple did and what MS did, then you should look into the history of MS anti-competitive behavior.

The difference between what they did being Microsoft was more successful, if I'm reading the winds here right.

No, you are not reading them right.. Apple became a monopoly by creating good and services that people wanted. They stayed that way by improving their goods continuously.Microsoft became a monopoly by keeping the competition down. They stayed that way be keeping the competition down.

The success of their ventures had nothing to do with anything - Their path to success is the difference.

This is total BS. No OS in entire history ever offered a browser choice. It comes with one. If you dont like it, you install what you want.

Yes, back then you could install whatever you wanted, as long as you didn't mind seeing a constant barrage of websites not working on your browser of choice because they were based on active server pages and active x controls that didn't work on anything except for Internet Explorer.

I can't even say that Apple has a monopoly on... anything. Seriously, Apple is not, in ANY market, what MS was to desktop OSes in the 1990s. They're not even what MS is today. And Apple isn't using their non-existent monopoly to force the competition out of town. They can lock down their OWN hardware/software, but that's totally different from MS locking other people's software out of other people's hardware.

"The government will seek rules that allow computer makers to choose among rival software products rather than being forced to take what Microsoft demands when it licenses its widely popular Windows operating system software, among other provisions, those close to the case said.

Software features or programs will be covered under the government's approach if they are seen as potential threats to Windows, these lawyers said. This category of products is almost certain to include Internet browser software and Sun Microsystems Inc.'s Java software, which were both cited by the court as having been targeted by Microsoft, along with other current and future technology that may threaten the Windows monopoly."

The dominance of iPhones over Android in terms of marketshare was short-lived and long-past, meanwhile iPhones were always competing with stronger numbers from RIM and Nokia until just recently. That's a totally different picture in comparison to the dominance of IE in the browser space and bundling with Windows on the desktop that helped it come about.

Fair point then, but the overall the graph lets us labor the point. If one phone controls what? 70-90%? of the market and they don't provide a system that inherently provides alternatives instead of including its own software for mundane tasks is it not the creating the same anti-trust situation as Microsoft did on PCs?

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

The fact that the iPhone was a closed app ecosystem with a walled-garden process for getting new apps is also a significant point of difference in contrast with the world of PCs in which MS operated, where anybody could write and sell software that didn't need MS's approval to run.

Wargarrbl.

Thanks for your articulate and well-informed rebuttal. I now have a lot to consider and re-evaluate.

As I have no idea how the argument that a closed and closely controlled system that doesn't allow competing products except at the express wishes of the producer is somehow MORE competitive than a full open system, I gave you the exact reply that made sense.

In so much that they are a product and we are referring to anticompetitiveness, they do.

Apple doesn't have a monopoly on portable MP3 players. They did not use this non-existent monopoly to force competing mp3 stores, players manufacturers, or mp3 management software out of the game. iPods were the most popular thing going for a while (probably they still are if we count out people who only use their phones as players), but they never became the monopoly that Windows did and there was never a situation where they repeated the Internet Explorer debacle that the EU investigated Microsoft for pursuing. Where is the similarity?

Since you're the one arguing as if they have such a monopoly, why don't you provide some evidence for a change?

Quote:

Quote:

B) Re: Phones[img]

Is this filtered for consumer ownership?

Why should it be?

Quote:

Fair point then, but the overall the graph lets us labor the point. If one phone controls what? 70-90%? of the market and they don't provide a system that inherently provides alternatives instead of including its own software for mundane tasks is it not the creating the same anti-trust situation as Microsoft did on PCs?

Perhaps, if such a thing ever happened in this world. But you seem to be talking about a purely hypothetical and imaginary world where such a thing DID happen to phones and WAS an issue the way MS's handling of the Browser Wars turned out to be. Excuse me for dealing with our own timeline, my TARDIS is in the shop.

Quote:

As I have no idea how the argument that a closed and closely controlled system that doesn't allow competing products except at the express wishes of the producer is somehow MORE competitive than a full open system, I gave you the exact reply that made sense.

Because that system is operating and always has operated in a MORE competitive market, where non-obscure alternative systems were available and consumers were not hurting for choice. Get back to me when every phone app, mobile website, or piece of digital music is coded specifically for iDevices and carriers aren't allowed to ship Android handsets if they offer iPhones.

It's not against the law to create a product that the consumers want more than the alternatives and thus gain dominance in a market. It is however wrong to use that dominance on one market to gain an anticompetitive advantage in another market.

So the iPod driving other products out of the market because it's more popular is completely ok. What may be illegal is edging out the competition in the digital music market (not saying they did, but it would be if they have done so) or vice versa. Now the digital music market would first have to be considered it's own market under the anti-competition laws of the time. There's a good argument to be made that there was (and maybe still is) only a market for music, and not a market for digital music and one of music on physical media. The iTunes Store only became the world largest music vendor in 2010 but the iTunes Store started selling DRM-free music in 2007 which removed the potentially anticompetitive practice of the iPod being the only FairPlay capable device and the iTunes Store being the only FairPlay store. Unfortunately I couldn't find any data on the EU market which would be the only one relevant for EU authorities. Overall I don't think you have much of case.

If you believe otherwise, and especially if you happen to reside in the European Union, I'd encourage you to notify the European Commission of you concerns: omp-market-information@ec.europa.eu.